I don’t recall Deep Throat interviewing with “Vanity Fair”! 
But good cite. Made me look! 
duh, he did just interview with “Vanity Fair” didn’t he.
Truth be told?
Three people knew.
Four, including Felt himself: WP editor Ben Bradlee knew, too. (Or is that what you alluding to, Reeder?)
But did Dick know? That would make five!
I thought Bradlee didn’t know. That’s what fueled a lof of the speculation that DT was a composite: supposedly, Bradlee said, “Give me a name,” and the guy-smoking-in-a-parking-garage scenario was an invention to avoid admitting that there were several sources, not just one. As it is, I’m still not sure Bradlee knew who DT was.
Bradlee did know. But he had never met Felt.
That makes very little sense to me. Suppse he’d said “G. Gordon Liddy is dirty as hell” and, from the White House perspective, Woodward and Bernstein suddenly start investigating G. Gordon Liddy. How does that lead back to any specific person any more than if he said “follow the money”, and they started following the money?
I think being conflicted has more to do with it… but still, it’s an odd thing to do, almost split-personality. I mean, if I had confidential information and was trying to decide whether to sell out the US to an enemy, I’d either do it or not do it. If I only hinted at the information I had, that’s still just as much treason, but much less useful (assuming I wanted the US to be undercut).
Well, “Gordon Liddy is dirty as hell” is hardly a detail, and wouldn’t do Woodward much good unless he said how Liddy was dirty.
Here’s how it works: people in government are told secrets on a need-to-know basis, and they aren’t all told the same secrets. If inside information started showing up in the Post, the higher-ups (Haldeman and Erlichman probably) would figure out what had been told to whom, and would quickly narrow down their list of suspected leakers. They might even dole out little bits of information to different people to see what showed up in the papers. This is how governments catch spies. So, for example, Felt had told Woodward who had been paid how much hush money, it’s a lot more likely the leak would be traced back to him than if he just said, “follow the money.”
He didn’t know for sure, but as it turns out, he was suspicious of the right guy.
One of the articles I read today said that Bradlee was not given Felt’s name until after Nixon resigned. But it was fairly public knowledge that Bradlee wrote “Deep Throat’s” obituary, so he had to know.
To elaborate on pseudotriton’s answer, when a source tells a reporter he is speaking on “deep background,” that means “you can’t print any of what I’m telling you or identify me in any way.” So the reporter then has to use the information he’s been given to try and get another source to go on record.
Thanks to both of you.
While I can accept this answer as factual, I can’t help but feel somewhat “cheated” as I was hoping for something much more… sinister…
… like Linda Lovelace, Nixon, Jimmy Hoffa gettin’ it on, in the Lincoln bedroom, on 8mm secret service surveillance tape
Well, in that example, if two reporters suddenly start investigating Liddy, it would kind of seem likely to me that they’ve been leaked info by SOMEBODY.
If they suddenly start following the money, it could be that they’ve been leaked info, or it could be that they’re just following a fairly reasonable tack of investigation.
Which brings up another point. Was ‘follow the money’ an investigative-journalism maxim before ‘all the president’s men’ came out, or did it become so BECAUSE of the book??
Gene Weingarten has always claimed he knew as well. Take with appropriate-sized amount of sodium chloride.
WAG: I think it was a truism of investigate work beforehand, sort of a variation on “Cherchez la femme,” but because it was such a useful maxim on such a major story, “follow the money” became elevated in stature. Like “It’s the economy, stupid,” it was a case of a very simple and obvious principle working out so well that it acquired a greater status as a major truth than it already had.
In an article today in The Post’s commuter paper Express, Bradlee said he didn’t know Deep Throat’s identity while the Watergate investigation was going on, but that Woodstein told him after Nixon resigned.
Also, before the Vanity Fair piece, Felt had apparently told a handful of friends and family members over the last few years. According to one article I read somewhere yesterday (at washingtonpost.com perhaps?), Felt went public in Vanity Fair after his children, who knew, prevailed upon him to do so.
–Cliffy
What’s “H^H^H^H^H^”?
It might be less odd if you employed a better comparison. Felt’s dilemma wasn’t between either refraining from betraying his country or betraying his country. His dilemma was between exposing corruption (i.e., helping his country) on the one hand; and being exposed to condemnation and possibly retaliation by people he worked with and for (Felt was pretty much a Nixon conservative of the day). It’s like the classic whistleblower’s dilemma.
Back in the days before the Web, some Telnet and newsreader clients would not accept the backspace key. So you’d type your input, realize you had a typo, backspace to the typo and correct it, and then hit enter. Your input line looked fine, with the correction in place, but when the line would post to the screen so the others on the channel could read it, you’d see the original line with the typo, H^ for every tim eyou hit the backspace key, and then the stuff you typed afterwards.
E.g., suppose I typed “Hi Bib!” then noticed the typo. I’d backspace, correct it, and retype so my input line read: “Hi Bob!” But when I hit enter, “Hi Bib!H^H^H^ob!” would appear on the screen.
Now, that symbol is used as a joke as Reeder did to pretend that the writer of the post typed one thing and then changed it. I guess it’s a joke that moronsH^H^H^H^H^younger folks don’t get.
–Cliffy
By the way, reading Tim Noah’s piece in ‘Slate’ following the revelation, another reason that deep throat only pointed the way very generally has occured to me: it could have been, (paradoxically) a way for him to earn credibility with Woodward and Bernstein. He wasn’t telling them what they’d find, only (in a roundabout way) where to look.
(from a 1979 Playboy interview with J. Anthony Lukas)
Does this shed any light on the hints vs clear info question?? Since Felt was in the FBI, with possible motives to see Nixon kicked out, would the reporters have wondered if they were being set up as pawns if he gave away too much info??
Just a thought.
you didn’t use enough backspaces I think, and got “myounger”
[sub](Also, looks like Rilchiam used too many.)[/sub]